sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/11/MNGRA4U14O1.DTL
A not-so-civil war has erupted at the Sierra Club, the countrys oldest and largest environmental group, and its leaders say the heart and soul of the venerable, San Francisco-based organization are at stake. At issue is whether the club should adopt a position of strict United States immigration controls as a way to limit the environmental impact of overpopulation - and risk alienating many of the progressive groups that typically ally themselves with the club. The immigration issue has polarized club members before, but this time the battle has taken on an epic quality, involving a host of other issues, from animal rights to the clubs own democratic traditions, and attracting the involvement of an array of outside groups trying to influence the clubs policies. Now, with five of the 15 seats on the clubs board of directors up for grabs, a slate of insurgent candidates who favor tougher immigration controls could gain control in a March election. On Tuesday, insurgent candidates filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that the clubs leaders are illegally manipulating the elections by urging members to vote against the anti-immigration slate. I have been watching elections for 40 years, but I have never seen an election less just, less objective or less democratic. Larry Fahn, the clubs president and a board member, dismissed Lamms comparison as ridiculous, saying the suit was replete with inaccuracies and misstatements and that the club leadership will not be muzzled in getting the word out to our members. Club leaders, including Fahn and 12 former club presidents, say the conflict could change the essential character of the 112-year-old organization, which has 750,000 members. Outside involvement They note that many outside groups - ranging from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to white supremacy organizations - have waded into the controversy, urging their members to join the club simply to cast their votes for one slate or the other. The bedrock issue, they say, isnt immigration, but whether the club should be controlled by insiders or outsiders. The fact that outside organizations, especially anti-immigration groups, are trying to recruit our members has alarmed many people in the club, said Carl Pope, the clubs executive director. Pope said the club strives to be a big tent, where people of all views can come together in their desire to protect the environment. This kind of change on immigration policy would polarize our membership. It would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain that big tent, and it would greatly reduce our effectiveness. Immigration has become an increasingly divisive issue in the environmental community in recent years. Some favor strict immigration controls as a way to hold down United States population, which they view as the countrys single most pressing environmental problem. But opponents of immigration controls say a much better approach is the promotion of fair trade policies that encourage higher wages for workers in developing countries. That, they say, would reduce the intensive economic incentives that compel people to cross United States borders illegally in search of employment. Six years ago, Sierra Club members voted on a bitterly contested referendum on immigration, with a majority ultimately favoring a neutral policy. The matter came up again in the 2002 board elections, and three candidates who favored strict immigration controls were elected. Douglas LaFollette, a board member elected in 2002 who is the secretary of state for Wisconsin, opposes liberal immigration quotas. He said the Sierra Clubs official neutral position on immigration is a relatively recent development. Now, when people want to talk about returning to the clubs historic position, the board wont hear about it. But Robert Cox, a former club president and current board member, said its not for the board to decide. If a majority of the board decided to reverse that, it would show utter disrespect for the Sierra Clubs democratic traditions of governance by the members. Cox said the club must form broad-based coalitions if it is to prove effective in influencing regional and national environmental policies. An anti- immigration stance, he said, would alienate many traditional partners. We have partnerships with progressive groups, with labor, with organizations representing people of color, Cox said. An anti-immigration message would send a shock through many of our existing allies and divert us from our core conservation mission. The anti-immigration slate has attracted its own allies in the fight for the Sierra Club board. In a classic case of strange bedfellows, they have joined forces with animal rights groups, which hope to force the club away from its neutral position on hunting and fishing to a policy condemning blood sports. Supremacist groups More alarming, club leaders say, is that white supremacy organizations have waded into the controversy.
Chuck McGrady, the Sierra Clubs vice president, a former president and a board member, said he is middle-of-the-road on immigration, and has no problem with the debate. But Im very concerned about all these outside groups, from all across the political spectrum, getting involved, he said. Therere racist groups on one side and the Southern Poverty Law Center on the other. But the insurgents say they are being smeared by the clubs establishment simply because their views dont jibe with those of the current leadership. Especially invidious, they say, are claims that the anti-immigration candidates themselves are racist. If it wasnt so sad, itd be comical, said Frank Morris, a board candidate and retired college professor who lives in Texas. Im a past president of an NAACP chapter, and I was executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation from 1983 to 1986. And yet, they just hammer us with these absurd, ad hominen attacks. Morris said that immigration is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing the nation today, and that it must be addressed by the club if the organization is to retain any credibility. I dont think you can be concerned about the environment without being concerned about immigration, Morris said. The idea that the moral position is to have everyone move to the United States simply doesnt make sense. We have 4 percent of the worlds population, but we consume 25 percent of the resources. The more Americans there are, the more environmental stress there is on the planet. Instead of a liberal immigration policy, Morris said, What we should be doing is encouraging trade throughout the world so everyone can make a decent living. Democratic principles Ironically, it is the Sierra Clubs democratic traditions that make radical policy shifts possible. Anyone can join the club and immediately run for its board of directors. But typically, directors are longtime activists who filter up from the clubs grassroots of semiautonomous chapters. Fahn, the current president, said the candidates on the anti-immigration slate have never been club activists. Theyre certainly running within our rules, but it has been my experience that the most effective board members are those who have come through the ranks. No matter how the March election shakes out, immigration is sure to remain a divisive issue for club members. And in the end, Pope said, it will probably be the membership rather than the board that determines the clubs policy. The board of directors has agreed to put the matter to the membership in another vote in 2005, Pope said. I think its likely that the Sierra Club position will be settled in that form, not by the board.
|
http://csua.com/feed/